Dismissed

Michael Gamanga @ Mikhaiel Gamango v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC6 Apr 2023BLAPL/1250/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was rejected. The Court deferred the decision to allow the petitioner to renew the prayer after the examination of the informant and other material witnesses. It directed the trial court to expedite the trial within six months.

What did the court decide?

BLAPL rejected with liberty to renew prayer for bail after examination of material witnesses; trial to be expedited within six months.

Michael Gamanga @ Mikhaiel Gamango Vs State of Odisha — Bail and Remand | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No.1253 of 2023

¶3

Sanjaya Gamango

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. P.P. Parida, Advocate

-Versus-

State of Odisha

…. Opposite Party

Mr. P.K. Rout, AGA

CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK ORDER

06.04.2023

Order No.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Rout, learned AGA for the State.

¶16

Instant petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is filed for release of the petitioner on bail in connection with Adava P.S. Case No.63 dated 13th June, 2023 corresponding to S.T. Case No.57 of 2021 pending in the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paralakhemundi, Gajapati on the grounds stated therein.

¶17

Gone through the FIR, the copies of the chargesheet, statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and depositions of the witnesses in S.T. Case No.57 of 2021 as at Annexure-2 series.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 15th June, 2021 and he is not involved and in so far as the witnesses examined from the side of the prosecution are concerned, they have not whispered any adverse against him. It is submitted that the victim claims to have been killed by the accused persons during the alleged incident but

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

considering the nature of evidence received from the prosecution, learned counsel further submits that the petitioner who has been custody for nearly two years by now should be released subject to any terms and conditions as would be fixed by the Court. It is also submitted that the son-in-law one of the deceased was examined as P.W.4 before the learned court below but he has turned hostile.

¶21

Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State-opposite party on the other hand objected to the release of the petitioner on the ground that he and other accused persons did the mischief, as a result of which, the victims died. Furthermore, according to Mr. Rout, learned AGA, the material witnesses, such as, the informant and the mother have not yet been examined by the prosecution. In response to the above, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said witnesses are not turning up despite being summoned by the learned court below and there has been inordinate delay, inasmuch as, only 11 witnesses so far been examined from the side of the prosecution.

¶22

Considering the submissions of the learned AGA and learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Court is of the view that since the informant and another material witness are not examined, notwithstanding the evidence on record received by the learned court below, the Court is not inclined to direct release of the petitioner at present. The Court is also of the view that the petitioner should renew the prayer for bail after the examination of the informant and the other material witness who are the family members of one of the victims.

¶23

Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

In the result, BLAPL stands rejected, however, with a liberty in favour of the petitioner to renew the prayer for bail after examination of the informant and the other witness, who is stated to be material, by the prosecution in connection with S.T. Case No.57 of 2021. Furthermore, the Court directs the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paralakhemundi, Gajapati to expedite the trial and ensure its closure after examination of all the witnesses preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶26

A certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge

¶27

Tudu

¶28

Page 3 of 3

Michael Gamanga @ Mikhaiel Gamango v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Michael Gamanga @ Mikhaiel Gamango v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Ku.Panda Vs Collector,Balasore

Daljit Singh Vs State and Ors.

Kartik Chandra Giri Vs State of Odisha

Debesh Ch.Nayak Vs State

Dhruba Behera Vs Collector,Puri

Somanath Gamango Vs State of Odisha